Oriakhi v. Green

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

July 7, 2017

FELIX ORIAKHI, Petitioner,v.CHARLES GREEN, Respondent.

OPINION

KEVIN
MCNULTY United States District Judge.

I.
INTRODUCTION

The
petitioner, Felix Oriakhi is proceeding pro se with
a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 seeking release from immigration detention. On
April 10, 2017, this Court denied the habeas petition without
prejudice. Mr. Oriakhi was given the opportunity to reopen
this action within forty-five days if he was still in
immigration detention. On May 30, 2017, this Court received
Mr. Oriakhi's motion to reopen and for reconsideration.
(See Dkt. No. 22) This matter was then reopened.
(See Dkt. No. 23) It appears, however, that as of
June 16, 2017, Mr. Oriakhi was no longer an immigration
detainee. For the following reasons, the motion for
reconsideration will be denied as moot.

II.
BACKGROUND

Mr.
Oriakhi is a native and citizen of Nigeria. He entered the
United States in 1980. Thereafter, Mr. Oriakhi was convicted
in Maryland of conspiracy to distribute heroin, and received
a 360-month prison sentence. On March 13, 2013, as Mr.
Oriakhi was serving his criminal sentence, a final order of
removal was entered against him in immigration proceedings.
Upon his release from custody on his criminal sentence, on
May 4, 2016, Mr. Oriakhi was placed into immigration
detention.

Mr.
Oriakhi filed a habeas petition in this Court in November,
2016, He argued that the amount of time he had spent in
immigration detention was excessive under the standards of
Zadvydas v. Davis,533 U.S. 678 (2001).

On
April 10, 2017, this Court denied Mr. Oriakhi's habeas
petition without prejudice. (See Dkt. Nos. 20 &
21) At that time, I noted that Mr. Oriakhi had been in
post-removal immigration detention for over eleven months.
That period of time in and of itself did not compel federal
habeas relief, and Mr. Oriakhi had not then produced evidence
that there was no reasonable likelihood of his actual removal
in the reasonably foreseeable future. Nevertheless, I was
mindful that Mr. Oriakhi's post-removal immigration
detention was quickly approaching one year and that the
longer an alien is detained, the less proof he must put
forward to obtain relief See Alexander v. Attorney Gen.
United States, 495 F.App'x 274, 276-77 (3d Cir.
20120 (citing Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 701).
Accordingly, Mr. Oriakhi was given the opportunity to reopen
this case after forty-five days if he remained in immigration
detention.

On May
30, 2017, still in immigration detention, Mr. Oriakhi filed a
motion to reopen his case and for reconsideration of the
Court's earlier ruling denying relief. I reopened the
matter and ordered the respondent to file a response. That
response (Dkt. No. 24), filed June 19, 2017, states that Mr.
Oriakhi was ordered to be released from immigration detention
following a determination that it was unlikely that he would
be removed in the reasonably foreseeable future. (See
Id. at p.1) Accordingly, on June 16, 2017, Mr. Oriakhi
was released from immigration detention under an order of
supervision. (See Id. at p.5-10) On June 28, 2017,
this Court received a notice of change of address from Mr.
Oriakhi, which indicates that he is now residing in New York.

III.
DISCUSSION

As a
general matter, in Zadvydas, 533 U.S. 678, the
United States Supreme Court held that §
1231(a)(6)[1] "limits an alien's
post-removal-period detention to a period reasonably
necessary to bring about that alien's removal from the
United States. It does not permit indefinite detention."
533 U.S. at 689. To state a habeas claim under § 2241,
the petitioner must provide facts showing good reason to
believe that there is no reasonable likelihood of his actual
removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. See
Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 701. "Zadvydas does
not delineate the boundaries of evidentiary sufficiency, but
it suggests that an inversely proportional relationship is at
play: the longer an alien is detained, the less he must put
forward to obtain relief Alexander, 495 F.App'x
at 276-77 (citing Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 701). As a
rule of thumb, the Supreme Court stated that six months is a
presumptively reasonable period of post-removal detention
under § 1231(a)(6). See Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at
701.

Mr.
Oriakhi is no longer in immigration detention. Thus, he has
received the relief he seeks. There is no reason to think
that he will be placed in immigration detention again unless
he violates the conditions of his supervision, a speculative
state of affairs and one within Mr. Oriakhi's control.
Accordingly, there is no basis to grant him habeas relief as
his habeas petition seeking his release from immigration
detention is moot because "has achieved the result he
sought in his habeas petition and his change in circumstances
has 'forestalled any occasion for meaningful
relief.'" Nunes v. Decker, 480 F.App'x
173, 175 (3d Cir. 2012) (quoting Artway v. Att'y
Gen.,81 F.3d 1235, 1246 (3d Cir. 1996)) (other citation
omitted); see also Dubois v. Hen dricks, No.
14-3861, 2014 WL 4105482, at *3 (D.N.J. Aug. 18, 2014)
(dismissing habeas petition raising Zadvydas claim
as moot where petitioner was released from immigration
detention pursuant to an order of supervision); Rojas v.
Lowe, No. 13-0871, 2013 WL 5876851, at *3 (M.D.Pa. Oct.
30, 2013) (same). Accordingly, Mr. Oriakhi's motion for
reconsideration will be denied as moot.

IV.
CONCLUSION

For the
foregoing reasons, the motion for reconsideration will be
denied as moot and the matter will be closed. ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.